One of the objectives of the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, for her second term is not explained solely through geopolitics, competitiveness, or the state of community defense. However, it directly affects practically the Twenty-Seven Member States and one of the issues that the President herself defined as a "social crisis": access to housing.
This Wednesday will see the D day of the European strategy to address the housing crisis, with the presentation by the community executive of its anticipated initiative on affordable housing. After several delays, Brussels will put on the table a new regulatory framework aimed at establishing common criteria so that national, regional, and local authorities can adopt certain restrictions when there are documented problems of access to housing. The Commission is aware that the European Union does not have direct competence over housing policy. Therefore, its proposal does not intend to replace national policies or establish a European price control regime, but rather to set the conditions under which certain interventions by public authorities may be considered compatible with the community framework.
The drafts of the regulation that Demócrata has accessed focus its application on two specific types of measures that local public authorities can adopt. The first concerns restrictions on the provision of short-term rental accommodation services in residential properties. The second refers to measures aimed at limiting the acquisition of certain homes that will not be used as a primary residence.
Brussels does not propose, therefore, to intervene directly on the caps on residential rental prices, housing subsidies, or general tax measures adopted by the Member States. The proposal establishes, instead, a specific procedure for those local restrictions that may affect the functioning of the market and certain economic rights. To activate these measures, authorities must first demonstrate that the affected territory constitutes a "residential stress area". The declaration cannot be made arbitrarily, but must be based on an assessment based on objective, transparent, and verifiable data.
...Three conditions to declare a stressed area
The draft establishes three cumulative requirements to prove the existence of residential stress. The first will be a threshold of affordability, calculated based on the relationship between the average purchase price of a home in the corresponding area and the median of the disposable income of the local population. The objective is to determine to what extent the cost of access to property has become disconnected from the economic capacity of households.
The second requirement will be the evolution of this ratio. It will not be enough to prove that housing is currently unaffordable: the relationship between prices and income must have increased continuously over the previous ten years.
The third element introduces a prospective dimension. Authorities must demonstrate that it is unlikely that housing stress will decrease in the following three years, taking into account variables such as demographic evolution, available supply, and housing demand. The territorial delimitation will also be subject to the principle of proportionality. Areas declared in a state of stress must be limited strictly to the scope necessary to address the proven problem. They may include specific neighborhoods or districts up to entire municipalities, but they cannot automatically extend to broader territories without sufficient justification.
The declaration will not be enough: causality must be demonstrated
The declaration of an area as a residential stress zone will be a necessary condition, but not sufficient to impose restrictions. Authorities must also pass a second test: that of causality. In the case of short-term tourist rentals, authorities must demonstrate through objective data that this activity has had an adverse impact on the availability of residential housing in the specific area for at least the three years prior to the adoption of the measure.
The same principle will apply to the restrictions on the acquisition of housing that will not constitute a primary residence. Authorities must demonstrate that these operations are effectively contributing to the deterioration of the availability of housing for permanent residence. The regulatory architecture of Brussels thus introduces a relevant distinction: it will not be enough to identify a stressed area; it will have to be demonstrated that the activity that is intended to be restricted is contributing to the problem that is intended to be solved. In practical terms, the rule will allow for the limitation, in certain areas with serious access problems to housing, of certain operations linked to uses that do not provide residential stability to the local community, such as second homes or certain tourist uses. The objective will be to preserve the availability of homes intended to become permanent homes.
The consulted sources indicate that any restriction must comply with stringent requirements of proportionality and protection of rights. One of the most relevant limits directly affects short-term rentals. Municipalities will not be able to impose restrictions when the owner is offering their own primary residence. The logic of Brussels is that this type of activity does not necessarily imply a structural withdrawal of stock from the residential market in the long term and, therefore, cannot automatically receive the same treatment as commercial activities.
Parliamentary sources acknowledge that this point could become one of the elements of greatest tension during future negotiations of the text. Restrictions on housing that do not constitute a primary residence must primarily target those activities that, due to their commercial nature and intensity, present a greater likelihood of reducing the availability of housing for long-term residential uses.
The European regulation on tourist rentals, as a requirement
In the case of restrictions on short-term rentals, the competent authorities must be effectively applying and enforcing the European Regulation on Short-Term Rentals (STR). This implies that the tools provided by the European regulations regarding host registration, data verification, information exchange, and enforcement of orders to withdraw listings that lack a valid registration must be operational.
The Commission thus aims to prevent new restriction instruments from becoming isolated or difficult to supervise mechanisms. Local intervention must be integrated into the European system of traceability and control of short-term accommodations.
The drafts also introduce specific mechanisms to prevent local restrictions from becoming permanent, arbitrary, or disproportionate barriers. Before a measure comes into effect, the city council must openly publish the relevant information, including the assessment of residential stress, the justification for the intervention, and the exact territorial and material scope of the restriction.
Furthermore, the measures cannot be established indefinitely. The councils must subject them to a periodic review, at least every five years, with the aim of verifying whether the conditions that justified their adoption continue to be met. The regulatory philosophy of Brussels is clear: restrictions on demand must function as temporary and conditional instruments, not as substitutes for a structural housing policy.
The structural solution?
The Commission starts from a premise: limiting certain forms of demand can partially alleviate pressure on the market, but does not itself resolve the structural housing deficit. Therefore, the community executive proposes to complement these measures with long-term strategies aimed at increasing the supply of affordable and social housing.
Among the recommended actions are the reform of building codes, the streamlining of urban licensing procedures, the development of projects in degraded urban areas, and the conversion of non-residential buildings for residential use. The new regulatory architecture seeks, ultimately, to establish a balance between the competencies of local authorities, the protection of the residential market, and the principles of the internal market.
For Brussels, the new framework should also provide greater regulatory predictability to the tourism sector and real estate operators. Companies and freelancers will be able to know more precisely under what technical parameters, in which territories, and for how long certain restrictions can be applied. The Commission's ultimate goal is to reduce regulatory fragmentation and arbitrariness between territories, establishing a common methodology to justify interventions in the housing market.
Housing thus becomes one of the new regulatory fronts of von der Leyen's second term: Brussels will not set how much a home can cost nor will it replace States in their housing policies, but it does want to establish the rules under which local authorities can intervene when they can demonstrate, with data, that there is residential stress and that a certain activity is contributing to aggravating it.